So 50% score loss because of a permissive EULA, got it …
I’ll just leave this in the “Pitchforks against Pitchford” and “Woke, must hate” folder. Call me back when they do actually include a rootkit in their games instead of jumping the gun because loud feelings say loud things. If only there was some way to get statistics of the people getting outraged because of posts in a subreddit community and the people who don’t have a problem with rootkits installed by their favorite MMOs.
Let’s try this logic on other things. Their EULA says they can cut off a finger whenever they want. They haven’t cut off my finger for my purchase of this game, call me back when they cut it off.
If you’re someone that doesn’t want companies to have root level access to your computer, waiting until it happens is silly when they’re telling you it’s gonna happen. It is every reason to complain and be concerned.
No offense, but have you ever read EULAs? Even Windows EULA has a lot of “cut off a finger” provisions. It’s invasive, and people are right to complain. People might cry Linux, but when their job requires them to use Windows and abide by that EULA, most will crumble.
Like it or not, most EULAs are legally binding bullshit that more often than not has to be ignored or bypassed outside of it if necessary. How many people are watching YouTube and ignoring their Terms of Service while using adblockers?
This is nothing new in the world of gaming, and to the scale of affecting over 50% of the score of a game for a provision that is often included in other games they have no problem with is what’s revealing. A lot of MMOs and many multiplayer games do, but people haven’t cried wolf outside of a minority of their community. Pitchford has given his explanation, that it is a matter of the 2K EULA Gearbox has to adopt.
Let’s try this logic on other things. Are all 2K games that have this in their newly updated EULA’s being boycotted? Hint: Civilization is a 2K game.
Some things are just obvious when your head is not stuck inside the ass of a circlejerk bandwagon. It’s just sad that some people aren’t honest with themselves and and are not willing to recognize how easily they are influenced by people who are holding hidden grudges. Too many games are getting shit on because of this, and I say this as someone who is not looking forward to the next Borderlands game until the discounts drop it well below its 80 dollar price tag several years from now while plenty of loud people in this thread will go out to buy it on day one.
I agree they should expand their review protest to all games in the catalog and not selectively review bomb. Consumers have every reason to impact products success through their purchasing power and reviews. I stopped giving my money to game companies I don’t like a decade ago. It means missing some games, but there is so much out there it hardly matters. I don’t give a shit about this specific controversy, but I do think people have every reason to use their bully pulpit to attempt to impact consumer habits and therefore at least attempt change, even if they are often unsuccessful.
Feedback: that’s a great screen shot. I really enjoyed playing this screenshot. The screenshot download was fast and I was able to run it from my phone.
In English class they is a plural pronoun he, she, it are singular and how is using a traditionally singular pronoun microaggression I am not against trans people but wth?
Singular they is not a new concept designed to appeal to the “woke crowd”. I was very much taught in school to use singular they, it was always something used when the gender of the subject was unknown and often even if it is known but unimportant. It has been part of the English language for a long time.
It somewhat invalidates non-binary people by not including them. Grammatically it isn’t necessary (and as an aside is unnecessarily clunky, 6 chrs vs 4) so by using it instead of singular they, it can be seen as exclusionary.
I’d recommend Kingdoms of Amalur if you’ve never played it. It has neat lore, and the combat is fairly satisfying imo. My main complaint is that combat gets kinda easy when you start approaching the level cap, even on max difficulty, but I still go back to the game every now and then.
BG3 is pretty good for that to be honest - good character customization, there’s a learning curve to be sure so its not a power fantasy until you get past that.
I thought about doing a D:OS2 replay, but the combat in that is too slow, and I don’t want to rely on a party. I heard Baldur’s Gate plays a lot like Divinity?
That makes literally zero sense. The point of skill based match making is that you’re matched against people who are equivalent to your skill level. It allows skilled players to go against skilled players and newbies to git gud.
Idk there is something I miss about older games where I slowly got better until I was the person on top of the scoreboard.
Also SBMM has some problems for better players depending on the implementation, at the end of the ranking bell curve it stops working. Often the skill difference between a top 100k player and a top 1k player is the same as between a top 1k and top 100 player.
But the top 1k all fall within the same matchmaking pool, even if it leads to unfair games.
Currently experiencing this within The Finals where I regularly get put against a full stack of top 20 players while either solo or duo q myself (were top 2500).
Kind of ironic for the meme because cod 4 did have a version of sbmm.
Skill based matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to team based games in my memory. Theoretically it should lead to engaging games but it usually just is a mishmash of the high mmr players being high as a kite and low mmr players that got carried too far.
Just feels like, why try if you’re guaranteed a 50% win rate no matter what? That leads to more friction between the people checking out and playing for fun and people playing to make their mmr bigger.
It used to be fun to see your progression relative to the lobby and how you were improving over time. If it felt too easy you could give yourself a handicap with an off meta gun/strat. If it was hard it felt extra good to have the rare game as a top performer.
And before people say “you just like stomping noobs”, I’ve been on both sides in many games. Floated top 2-3% in Rocket League and hated every minute, been a cellar dweller in some shooters and had hundreds of hours of fun.
But seriously, I was quite disappointed by it too. I really enjoyed 3. NV was kind of fun too. 4 just felt like it was trying too hard in the wrong places. They put a lot of the effort that should have gone into storyline development and put it into the town building minigame. They tried to catch the wave of Ark and all those other base builders and lost the story in the sandbox. Two half games don’t make a whole game.
If it was from 10-20 years ago, top down from an angle with modeled 3d units, it might be one of the Wargame titles from Eugen, or if it was WW2 setting maybe Combat Mission: beyond overlord, Company of Heroes, or Men of War.
If it was straight on top down 2D, it might have been Mud and Blood, which was a WW2 wave defense flash game.
Was it top down in the sense of looking straight down or from above at an angle? Were the units modeled as individual 3d models or just 2D icons?
Also, roughly what time period was it set in? Like, Napoleonic, WW2, Cold War, Contemporary?
Was it single player or multi player focused?
Could you get additional units as the game went on or were you locked with the units you started with? How could you get additional units? Points? Timer?
bin.pol.social
Aktywne